The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Powers of Association
Abstract
This article starts with a paradox: when an actor simply has power nothing happens and s/he is powerless; when, on the other hand, an actor exerts power it is others who perform the action. It appears that power is not something one can possess – indeed it must be treated as a consequence rather than as a cause of action. In order to explore this paradox a diffusion model of power in which a successful command moves under an impetus given it from a central source is contrasted with a translation model in which such a command, if it is successful, results from the actions of a chain of agents each of whom ‘translates’ it in accordance with his/her own projects. Since, in the translation model, power is composed here and now by enrolling many actors in a given political and social scheme, and is not something that can be stored up and given to the powerful by a pre-existing ‘society’, it follows that debates about the origins of society, the nature of its components, and their relationships become crucial data for the sociologist. It also follows that the nature of society is negotiable, a practical and revisable matter (performative), and not something that can be determined once and for all by the sociologist who attempts to stand outside it (ostensive). The sociologist should, accordingly, seek to analyse the way in which people are associated together, and should, in particular, pay attention to the material and extrasomatic resources (including inscriptions) that offer ways of linking people that may last longer than any given interaction. In the translation model the study of society therefore moves from the study of the social as this is usually conceived, to a study of methods of association.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020
Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity
Law, J. (1992) · Systems Practice · doi:10.1007/bf01059830 · Cited by 3,244
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990) · Economy and Society · doi:10.1080/03085149000000001 · Cited by 2,877
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 · Cited by 2,829
Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change
Feldman, M. S. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529 · Cited by 1,969
Metadata
- Authors
- Latour, B.
- Venue
- The Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1984-05
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1_suppl
- Pages
- 264-280
- ISSN
- 0038-0261 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-954X
- OpenAlex
- W1679823108
- Cited by
- 1,295
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Powers of Association. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1984.tb00115.x
- The paper
- Latour, B. (1984). The Powers of Association. The Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1984.tb00115.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.